On Saturday, Saudi Arabia executed 47 men on charges of terrorism, including an anti-government Shiite cleric named Nimr al-Nimr who may well have been receiving Iranian support. In response, a supposedly spontaneous mob attacked the Saudi embassy in Tehran, and now Riyadh has broken off relations with the Islamic Republic. The entire crisis, writes Benny Avni, is a byproduct of America’s ill-advised Iran policy:

True, Riyadh’s justice system is no paragon of Jeffersonian ideals. Cruel and unusual punishment (stoning, limb-severing, throat slashing) is part of the system. We should certainly condemn it, rather than back the Saudi candidacy for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council as we did last year.

But the supposedly aggrieved party here, Iran, is second only to China in using the death penalty, doubling the annual Saudi execution rate—including political opponents. Except rather than slashing throats, like the kingdom’s executioners, the mullahs hang people from cranes at city centers. There are no angels here.

Meanwhile, the Saudis, our allies for a century, are at a crossroads. . . . As [they and other] Arabs see it, America constantly sides with Iran and its Shiite allies against the Sunnis—who make up more than 80 percent of the world’s Muslims. . . .

The Saudis . . . cherish their alliance with America, but last week they learned from our media of a White House plan to impose mild sanctions on Iran for illegally testing a long-range missile—only to reverse course a day later and postpone them after Iran complained.

Such behavior reinforces the notion that America’s only true goal in the region is preserving a presidential legacy: the already much-dreaded Iran nuclear deal signed last July. Having all the leverage over Washington, which fears an Iranian walkout above all, Tehran no longer even needs nukes to cause real existential heartburn in Riyadh.

On Tuesday, representatives of Hamas met with their counterparts from Fatah—the faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) once led by Yasir Arafat that now governs parts of the West Bank—in Beijing to discuss possible reconciliation. While it is unlikely that these talks will yield any more progress than the many previous rounds, they constitute a significant step in China’s increasing attempts to involve itself in the Middle East on the side of Israel’s enemies.

By contrast, writes Tuvia Gering, Taiwan has been quick and consistent in its condemnations of Hamas and Iran and its expressions of sympathy with Israel:

Support from Taipei goes beyond words. Taiwan’s appointee in Tel Aviv and de-facto ambassador, Abby Lee, has been busy aiding hostage families, adopting the most affected kibbutzim in southern Israel, and volunteering with farmers. Taiwan recently pledged more than half a million dollars to Israel for critical initiatives, including medical and communications supplies for local municipalities. This follows earlier aid from Taiwan to an organization helping Israeli soldiers and families immediately after the October 7 attack.

The reasons why are not hard to fathom:

In many ways, Taiwan sees a reflection of itself in Israel—two vibrant democracies facing threats from hostile neighbors. Both nations wield substantial economic and technological prowess, and both heavily depend on U.S. military exports and diplomacy. Taipei also sees Israel as a “role model” for what Taiwan should aspire to be, citing its unwavering determination and capabilities to defend itself.

On a deeper level, Taiwanese leaders seem to view Israel’s war with Hamas and Iran as an extension of a greater struggle between democracy and autocracy.

Gering urges Israel to reciprocate these expressions of friendship and to take into account that “China has been going above and beyond to demonize the Jewish state in international forums.” Above all, he writes, Jerusalem should “take a firmer stance against China’s support for Hamas and Iran-backed terrorism, exposing the hypocrisy and repression that underpin its vision for a new global order.”